crucible@FERNWOOD.MPK.CA.US (01/04/90)
INTERNET CRUCIBLE SMTP EDITION
January, 1990 Volume 2 : Issue 1
In this issue:
- Letters in response to Volume 1, Issue 2
- Overselling The Network
- Reprint availability
THE CRUCIBLE is a moderated forum for the discussion of Internet issues.
Contributions received by the moderator are stripped of all identifying
headers and signatures and forwarded to a panel of reviewers. Materials
approved for publication will appear in THE CRUCIBLE without attribution.
This policy encourages consideration of ideas solely on their intrinsic
merit, free from the influences of authorship, funding sources and
organizational affiliations.
The INTERNET CRUCIBLE is an eleemosynary publication of Geoff Goodfellow.
Mail contributions to: crucible@fernwood.mpk.ca.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LETTERS IN RESPONSE TO THE CRUCIBLE VOLUME 1, ISSUE 2
The Changing Nature of Managing the Internet:
A Paradox in Governance
--------------
Sir:
I applaud the recommendations of this proposal. How do they get implemented?
Yours etc.,
--------------
Sir:
Although our site is not an Internet site, my contact with the
Internet while in college sparked a continuing interest its activities. In
The Crucible, (Vol. 1, Iss. 2), your contributors raises an issue concerning
the role of the IAB:
For the sake of argument, suppose one or more members of the IAB
were employees of a commercial concern. Further, suppose that these
commercial concerns were directly tied to Internet technology. For
example, one of of these concerns might be a vendor of Internet technology,
or another might be a supplier to such vendors.
Was this not a concern with the original mandate of the IAB when
DARPA founded the project? Obviously, network technology has become a
considerably more competitive market than when the Internet was originally
created, but since it is gov't funded, isn't there a bidding process for
introducing new technology into the Internet? It seems to me that this is a
fairly self-evident concern.
I think The Crucible is very interesting, although I do find the
lack of attribution disquieting. I think that if people are afraid of
openly criticizing the Internet management 1) they should revise their
opinion of the organizations that they are involved with or 2) as you
suggest, make the Internet management more accountable.
Yours etc.,
--------------
Sir:
I would like to agree with your policy of keeping contributions to
The Crucible anonymous. Many people are very willing to make honest
observations about problems with the Internet in private, but are afraid
that either their funding or their credibility in the Internet community
will be harmed if they speak publically. I may not agree with all of these
observations, but I agree with the value of having a place where they can
be made.
Yours etc.,
--------------
Sir:
While I feel that an open discussion of Internet is just fine, I
disagree strongly with several of the basic assumptions and statements in
The Crucible.
1) "Each contribution is refereed by a range of networking experts from
academia, research, and industry. As with refereed professional
journals, the referees are responsible for ensuring that a contribution
is credible..."
This is patently false and potentially quite damaging statement.
For many years, we in the academic community have worked to convince our
colleagues (e.g., physists, chemists, and biologists) that Computer
Scientists establish and use high standards for academic tenure and
promotion. In the academic world, the terms "peer review" and "refereed
publication" are sharply distinguished from "open" or "moderated"
discussions. As a member of a departmental promotion/tenure committee,
editor of one academic journal, and the editor-in-chief of another, I am
painfully aware of the academic refereeing process and how it differs from
what a pedestrian might think of as "refereeing". Scientists participate
in peer review voluntarily because they believe it will help keep their
publications accurate and objective. Part of the refereeing process
involves eliminating any unsubstantiated, subjective opinions. Thus, in a
refereed publication, one can say, "professor X proved Y" by giving a
citation to the published work, but one cannot say "I think professor X was
on vacation daydreaming and wasn't thinking clearly when he wrote paper Z"
because that conclusion is not warranted by the documented facts. This
distinction may seem like a minor quibble to readers who are interested in
expressing unsubstantiated opinions (or readers who are trying to speculate
at the discussion that went on behind the closed doors of IAB meetings),
but among my academic colleagues, it is an important point. Feel free to
publish unsubstantiated opinions or speculation, but please retract the
statements comparing The Crucible to a refereed journal and help us keep a
clear distinction between opinionated discussions and refereed journals.
(2) "Publication without attribution is a time-honored means for advancing
positions solely on the basis of their content. Unlike professional
journals that exist both to serve the community and contribute to the
authors' reputations, THE CRUCIBLE exists solely to serve the
community. THE CRUCIBLE moderator, a member of the network community
since 1973, feels that the Internet is best served by fostering a
forum in which ideas stand solely on their intrinsic merit, not on
the standings of the authors advancing the ideas...
THE CRUCIBLE, by publishing without attribution, prevents prejudice
towards contributions on the basis of authors' standings or their
affiliations, and encourages contributors to speak freely, without
organizational entanglements or jeopardizing funding sources. THE
CRUCIBLE relies on a wide cross-section of referees to filter
contributions that are not of a meritorious nature.
I agree that anonymous submissions of technical ideas are wonderful
and helps prevent predjuice. However, it only works for technical ideas
that are the subject of objective discussion, not for slanderous
allegations about individuals or groups. For example, if three groups
propose a replacement for the IP addressing scheme, anonymous consideration
of the ideas may eliminate predjuice. However if a random person says "the
IAB thought thus and so about topic X" that's absolutely different than
Vint Cerf, chair of the IAB, saying what the IAB thought. More to the
point, imagine someone writing, "I will work hard to see that Q does not
gain support." If the author is chairman of the FRICC, the statement is a
policy statement; but if the author is a first-year grad student, it's
meaningless. In an anonymous submission situation, you as moderator must
decide whether the publication will contain technical statements, policy
statements, or random opinions. You take responsibility for assuring your
readership that articles giving undocumented statements come from people
who are somehow giving correct and authoritative facts (or you should ask
authors to write "I have the impression..." in front of such statements
instead of publishing them as plain fact. In this regard, you have let us
down. At INTEROP 89(tm) you said that no one has given you one specific
instance of inaccuracy, so let me illustrate what I mean: you published an
article that blindly referred to CSNET as an example of a technology in
which the subscriber pays for the service. While it is true that there is
some usage-sensitive charging, CSNET survives ONLY because it was started
with an NSF seed fund and received other NSF grants along the way; it is
NOT a good example of the pay-for-use paradigm succeeding. Maybe if the
author had been a member of the CSNET executive committee he/she would have
known that, but as editor, you must either filter such statements or be
sure the authors are knowledgable. Similarly, articles were painfully
unaware of existing plans to upgrade NSFnet (not a secret as far as I know,
but you probably have to ask to find out), and of the existing work to
coordinate management of NSF regional nets.
If you want The Crucible to gain respect, more editorial discretion
will be needed (or rethink your policy and use anonymous submissions only
for objective technical material).
Yours etc.,
--------------
Sir:
In THE CRUCIBLE V1.2 a contribution stated:
Or do I have it wrong, and the worthy scholar of your piece doesn't care
whether we use world class networking in our allegedly world class national
research enterprise but just wants cheap reliable email? If so, we already
have it in the form of BITNET which reaches millions of individuals
worldwide for pennies a message and is 100% supported by member/user fees.
Would that it were so. Unfortunately BITNET is not 100%
self-supported. Today BITNET runs much of its traffic over the regional
and national IP networks. As such, it too is now relying upon governmental
funding. I have seen quotes of as much as 20% of the NSFNet traffic being
actually NJE buffers encapsulated in TCP/IP datagrams (in support of
BITNET). We feel subject to our own success, and traffic outgrew carrying
capacity, with our membership being unwilling to explicitly fund the
additional capacity needed to carry our own traffic. Sigh.
Yours etc.,
--------------
Sir:
I find the political issues involved with technology to be as
fascinating as the technical problems, and this is one reason I enjoy The
Crucible.
While reading the 2nd issue, it seems pretty clear that the
author(s) had an axe to grind (perhaps rightly so). This of course
highlights the anonymous policy of The Crucible, and makes one wonder about
the author's own motivation. Also, I am curious as to how many different
people contribute material, and who writes which pieces.
I would like to suggest that authors be identified with pseudonyms
(ala the Federalist Papers), and maybe a two-line bio telling us what role
they play in the Internet community. This would help readers keep straight
the various views.
I realize this is a slight departure from the policy of "advancing
positions solely on the basis of their content", but without any clue as to
the author's background or basis for his ideas, I would tend to slightly
suspect some of the more extreme critisms they make.
Yours etc.,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is THE CRUCIBLE's policy to correct errors. Readers are urged
to call mistakes to our attention by mailing to crucible@fernwood.mpk.ca.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overselling The Network
Few users of the Internet would argue that there are no benefits to
networking. Electronic mail, file transfer, and access to remote resources
are all services that we enjoy using every day. A bit of culture shock is
bound to ensue when the marketeers get involved to sell "The Network" to
The Public. This is the result of the well-intentioned, but often
unintentionally humorous and shocking, video production of "The National
Network" by MCI and IBM.
To introduce the concept of a network, the video begins and ends
with a conversation between a scholar from the Renaissance and a women from
the near-future garbed in a StarTrek-esque uniform. The opening scene is
used to set-up a linkage between Einstein's theory of relativity and
"communications moving at the speed of light". Fortunately, the scene and
its shmaltzy dialogue lasts only a couple of minutes before the video gets
on to make its sales pitch.
The sales pitch is that A National Research Network would be A Good
Thing to have, and that we need "...a network that is 1000 times more
powerful" than our current networking capability. No arguments there.
In fact, this is an important message to impress upon The Public and The
Government: intensive, well-supported research is critical to the
development of the next generation of networks. There are however, two
serious flaws in the video's presentation: inadequate examples of
networking, and arguably irresponsible claims about the reliability and
dependability of research networks.
Throughout the video, various examples of computer-based
applications are presented, such as the use of super-computer access for
bio-modeling, telescience, and so on. Although the examples are powerful,
they suffer from two defects. First, there is no time frame associated
with the examples--the viewer gets the impression that just about
everything described is already implemented. Second, there is no
distinction made between distributed and non-distributed applications--
virtually all of the examples, except for telescience, involve technologies
that rely on computer programs, not on computer networks.
These are serious defects, because money could be well spent on
developing computer applications without funding the network, per se. That
is, many of the examples given in the video show the value of computer
applications, not the value of distributed applications (telescience, of
course, being the exception). In view of such an approach, one might
easily interpret the video as suggesting that little work is needed on the
networking aspect--an unexpected, but logical response.
A misleading and arguably irresponsible impression about the value,
reliability and dependability of The Research Network is given by the video's
example of the use of The Network in providing emergency medical care.
The video cuts to a helicopter landing at a hospital, and we hear the
voice-over:
"One of the most immediate benefits of a National Research Network
will be to speed better health care to all regions of the
country. Most people do not live near a major medical
center--for them, The Network could be a life saver."
then the scene changes to an examining room. We see a young doctor
examining a sickly youth. The camera pans to the concerned mother who
is on the verge of tears as the doctor discusses her child's case.
What is wrong with this scene? Probably it is using the term
"Research Network" and "life saver" in the same thought! Given, among
other things, the hit-and-miss nature of routing in the Internet (and
the inability of the engineering and research community yet to fix it),
it is a tremendous leap of faith to imagine that Our National "Research"
Network will have the stability necessary for life-critical situations.
The following scenario is more likely:
Doctor: "Nurse, I need the patient's blood analysis to determine
the medication dosage which may save the patient's life."
Nurse: "I'm sorry Doctor, RIP has just begun counting to infinity,
we've lost connectivity to the backbone, and
network operations doesn't answer the phone."
Doctor: "Get my lawyer on the line, I want to make sure my
malpractice insurance covers this..."
If the medical hard-sell wasn't enough, you need to continue
viewing only about 10 more minutes before the spectre of national security
is invoked:
"We have a major dependence in this nation on the creation and
the transmission of ideas. The future of this nation is at stake."
From here, it is easy to imagine how the speaker transitions to
having The Federal Government paying for all of this. While it is clearly
in The National Interest to fund research for next-generation networking,
there is a very big danger with the tack taken by this video: overselling
The Network.
Recent history is the best teacher here; consider how the original
NSFNET was oversold to the U.S. Science community. The original goals of
NSFNET were straight-forward and honest: super-computer access for
physicists. Unfortunately, the technology then available was not quite up
to speed for the size and topology specified for the project.
What began as "NSFNET Phase I" was under-capitalized, under-manned,
and technically questionable. After the sale to The Science Community was
consummated, it was up to The Networking Community to make it happen.
NSFNET Phase I would have failed, except for the heroic efforts of one
good-natured, but extremely overworked networking guru. The routers were
flakey, connectivity was sketchy, and connections were creaky, but it was
enough to make another sale--"NSFNET Phase II," which brought a massive
infusion of capital and an industry coalition to make the technology appear
to be cost-effective. Fortunately for all of us, the NSFNET Phase II
delivers much better service than the Phase I project. Unfortunately for
our networking guru, all The Science Community ever saw was that "tinkerer"
who was constantly breaking "their network." The guru got bawled out at
the National Academy of Sciences for his efforts.
The Real Danger: as academicians, physicists have little real power
(no insult intended). But, The Public, The Medical Profession, The Legal
Profession, and The Politicians, do in fact Have Power. If The Networking
Community screws up this new "National Research Network"--if it is poorly
designed or executed, like the NSFNET Phase I cacophony--then the
networking research and engineering community will be held responsible.
The punishment won't be getting bawled out by a group of scholars, it will
be an international media-event of the first order.
By making a video for consumption by The Public, The Medical
Profession, The Legal Profession, and The Politicians, and by making
connections between The `Research' Network and life-critical care, we have
begun the game of repeating history. We are once again allowing ourselves
to oversell The Network. MCI and IBM are to be congratulated for producing
a video to promote the concept of a National Network, but tear-jerking,
drum-beating scenes inappropriately linking time critical health care for
the masses with a research network due the cause a disservice. "The
Network," if presented with realistic distributed applications can pretty
much sell itself!
REFERENCE: "National Network" --
A production of MCI and IBM (MCI Video Production Center, McLean, VA)
Color, VHS, 20 minutes. This video is available at any of the
organizations running the regional networks of the NSFNET.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email reprints of THE CRUCIBLE are available from crucible@fernwood.mpk.ca.us:
v1.1: "A Critical Analysis of the Internet Management Situation:
The Internet Lacks Governance", examines Internet technical and
accountability failures. (August 1989)
v1.2: "The Changing Nature of Managing the Internet:
A Paradox in Governance", examines the paradoxes and failures
inherent in the Internet management structure. (September 1989)
-------